通过使用Performance Magazine获得产品或服务的主要曝光机会,从而获得扩大您的影响力的机会。

如果您有兴趣通过Performance Magazine做广告,请在下面留下您的地址,或通过以下方式与我们联系: marketing@smartkpis.com.

logo1 关键绩效指标认证

阿兰 (1868-1951)

阿兰-Emile-Chartier-smartkpis-photo-7.comPhilippe Foray的文章1

阿兰, whose real name was Emile Chartier, was born in Normandy, France, on 3 March 1868. There is not much that can be said about his life; 阿兰 himself did not think it would contribute to a better understanding of his philosophy. From 1893 to 1933, 阿兰 taught philosophy in secondary schools. According to his pupils he was an outstanding teacher, combining his own highly personal philosophy with a thorough knowledge of the great works of Western philosophy, from Plato to Hegel. He fought in the First World War and was demobilized in 1917. After the war ended he went back to teaching while at the same time working as a journalist, a sideline he had started about ten years earlier with his regular contributions to the newspaper ‘La Dépêche de Rouen’.

Most of 阿兰’新闻评论的形式给我们带来了可观的产出,但是许多书也被单独出版,包括《圣经》的八十一章。’Esprit et les Passions (1917), Le Système des beaux-arts (1920), 火星ou la guerrejugée (1921), and commentaries on philosophical or literary works. 阿兰 died in Le Vésinet on 2 June 1951. It is worth noting that his interest in education was that of a philosopher, for he was not what is usually called an educator: someone of whose work history retains mainly the practical aspects. His 提案书’《教育》于1932年首次出版,是一本哲学著作,而我们打算在本文中介绍的正是这种哲学。


As his journalistic work might indicate, 阿兰’如果将其书本放在其历史背景下,则更易于理解。除了第二次世界大战期间维希的插曲之外,他的生平几乎与法国历史时期完全吻合,该时期见证了持久的共和民主制度的引入。这个时期也看到了工人的发展’ movements and trade unions. 阿兰 always expressed sympathy for such movements. Like them, he was determined to work for human emancipation. But, whereas the trade union movements were calling for social and political emancipation, 阿兰 believed that the only real freedom for human beings was freedom of the mind.

That was why he never subscribed to socialism and also why he taught in working-class universities. It is also clear that, from an educational point of view, 阿兰 lived at a turning point in the history of the school in France. Whatever approach one may adopt, the contribution made to education by the Third Republic was enormous. Whereas the church and the monarchist parties thought the goal of education was mainly religious, simply part of a father’为了履行对孩子的道义责任(换句话说,这只能是一个私人问题),第三共和国引入了国立学校,将教育视为所有公民都应享有的一项人权,而不是私下给予的青睐。国家有义务提供教育。从根本上说,公立学校必须独立于宗教信仰,因为共和国是世俗的。

这意味着第三共和国 ’对教育的贡献主要涉及建立机构。 1881年6月16日和1882年3月28日的法律确立了免费的,世俗的和义务的初等教育。阿兰对国家教育的建立以及随之而来的辩论有偏颇的看法,在这种背景下,我们应该努力树立他的教育理念。尽管他的建议书’教育与第三共和国的教育哲学有很多共同点,将这本书仅仅视为一种共和教育的官方哲学是错误的。阿兰’哲学是非常个人化的,挑战既定观点。在本文中,我们打算阐明阿兰之间的联系’的哲学和共和国的教育学说。一般而言,这将表明,尽管提案提案的后果’教育与该学说的融合,涉及不同的原理。


所有的教育哲学至少提出和解决三个问题:教育的目标,受教育者的性质以及实现该目标的方式。使用建议书’éducation2 as a base, we can formulate principles that give 阿兰’s answers to these three questions: the principle of the freedom of the mind; the principle of the individuality of each human being; the principle of education as instruction. It should be noted that these answers only concern that part of education that is provided by schools. There is one idea that stands above all these principles and encompasses them all: the idea of necessity. 阿兰 wrote:


Admittedly, education for 阿兰 also means learning about freedom, but the two are not mutually exclusive. There is no freedom that does not take account of external necessity and that does not, as Spinoza is thought to have said, ‘understand necessity’。世界的必要性的一个后果是教育的必要性:其作用的必要性,其代理人(家庭,学校,工作生活)及其顺序的必要性,使他们每个人都能履行其职责的手段的必要性功能。必然主题将与教育哲学的三个基本问题相关联。



This freedom is obviously an ideal to which we should aspire, but at the same time 阿兰 felt it was an ideal that could only be aspired to because it was not completely divorced from reality: ‘Obviously, there is no man of whom I can say that he will never concern himself with anything but his own work. Even if he were aslave like Aesop, he would still think. But he won’成为奴隶。他不仅会像每个人一样以某种方式思考人与神的事情,而且他将不得不在战争与和平,正义与不公正,高尚与可鄙之间做出决定—总之,他将不得不做出决定在各种事情上,这些决定,即使飘忽不定,也将作为个人承担全部责任’ (XX, 54).

In this specifically humanist sense, the inequality hitherto acknowledged in respect of professional ability and social status is no longer acceptable. The humanist goal of education, according to 阿兰, implies espousing wholeheartedly the principle of equality for all in education. This is conveyed most accurately in a disparate type of education that battles against the current of social inequalities: ‘If children show no aptitude for mathematics, this means that we should be particularly persistent and ingenious in our way of teaching them the subject. […]显然,最简单的答复是我们仍然经常听到的总结性判断:“He’s not very bright”。但是我们不能就此搁浅。

我们将对未来的成年人犯下严重的罪行。 […]我们应该帮助的人恰恰是那些总是被困住并且把所有事情弄错的人,那些容易放弃希望并对自己的心理能力没有信心的人’(XX,53)。重视效率和生产力会加剧社会不平等;另一方面,设定教育的人本主义目标,则恢复了在实践中被flo视的平等原则。这不仅是形式上的变化:教学实践的整个方法都应该受到它的影响。

In making the development and cultivation of a free mind the goal of education, 阿兰 was returning to a central tenet of the republican philosophy of education: that the State cannot be truly republican unless it is made up of free individuals. None the less, there is one fundamental difference between 阿兰’s philosophy and republican philosophy: 阿兰 does not regard the State as the sum of institutions which people establish to take control of its destiny and organize collective decision-making. He never believed that political organization would contribute to the freedom of the individual. In fact, his political philosophy is not a philosophy of the State but a philosophy of power, in other words it concerns the sum total of the phenomena that govern relationships between individuals and are not controlled by reason.

For 阿兰, power is inevitable once individuals live in society, and he believes a society cannot exist without rules and regulations, and therefore without power. But this power is not justified simply because the State is a good thing in itself. On the contrary, the State is only one of the forms through which political power is exercised. The State has no value in itself; it is only useful as a way of making it possible for people to live together. Power has only one goal: to perpetuate and extend itself and any person who wields power tends inevitably to be corrupted by it. Similarly, the idea of specifically political freedom has no meaning for 阿兰: the only freedom possible is the freedom of the mind to make its own judgements, and that is at the same time the only political freedom. This leads us to 阿兰’公民教育的观点,其中包括一般教育目的的问题。

这种观点可以简化为两个概念:身体上的服从和智力上的抵抗。 ‘我教服从’,阿兰(LXXXIII,208)写道,这是必要的,因为权力是必要的。但是服从权力并不一定意味着要尊重它。力量不需要爱,但需要不断的重新评估。那是公民 ’的工作。如果受权力启发的屈从于礼节主要来自人们投资的非理性氛围,那么阿兰敦促公民参与的持续神秘化进程可能会为将权力降低到应有的水平提供一些希望:人类社会的必然结果。阿兰’的政策基本上是拒绝之一。其目的是使权力与自由共存,并使国家行使权力与公民共存’监督和批评的权利。因此,当阿兰说教育的最高目标是发展思想自由时,他的意思与共和党政治哲学家提出相同思想时的意思大不相同。阿兰想赋予公民审判国家的权力,而不是强迫他们支持国家。

This same goal explains 阿兰’一直拒绝考虑对学校的投诉之一:学校未能满足劳动力市场的要求。他指出,这种抱怨总是来自当权者,那是因为与自由个体面对面是不符合他们的利益的:“他们以一种相当优越的态度问,如果不制造这种东西会产生什么用意? ,出售或发明武器;科技兴起,挑战智慧[…]因此,没有法官,也没有任何人可以审判法官,但是很快就会有愤怒的昆虫,它们具有出色的天赋,可以在岩石和彼此之间打洞。’.3

However, 阿兰 is far from being against the idea of vocational education. He calls it the time of the workshop or of apprenticeship, and sees it as a necessary stage in the progression towards adulthood: ‘The person who has never been an apprentice is only a big child’(XXIX,77)。但是他显然认为,孩子们在教室里度过的时间不应被他们在工作坊中度过的时间所掩盖,他们只能获得专门的技术技能(XXVI,68),而头脑的发展是教育的目标,没有订婚。会计与小学生所执行的任务的区别在于,会计可以机械地执行任务,而学生则可以智能地执行任务(XXIX,68)。

显然,会计师需要机械技能,但它们对需要发展智力的学生有害。研讨会旨在成功;教室旨在行使判断力;这就是为什么在车间中总是要计时间的原因,而教室是“花费时间的思考”的地方(XXVI,69)。再或者,在车间里,错误被批评为专业错误,而在教室里,应该允许错误,因为它们使学生能够纠正自己。而且,它是在教室而不是在车间中,在那里学生获得一种在工作世界中极其有用的能力:创新能力。 ‘以谋生为生的孩子没有获得有用的经验’, 阿兰 wrote, ‘because they are learning too soon to watch their step: they are learning to stop taking risks’ (XXIX, 76).

要吸取的教训是保持不同的教育水平分开的重要性。儿童的第一阶段是在家庭中玩耍。他们的工作生活会晚得多。学校介于这两个阶段之间。 ‘学校与工作相似,必须予以认真对待,但是另一方面,它不受严格的工作规则约束;任何犯错的人都可以重新开始’ (XXIX, 77). One obviously understands that now certain economic imperatives urge taking the demands of working life into account in schools at an earlier stage. But for 阿兰 this would be betraying the school’s educational function; it would mean giving it a purely social role and sacrificing the cultivation of the mind, without which, 阿兰 believes, no freedom is possible.


The second question, concerning the pupils as recipients of education, brings us face to face with the principle of the individuality of each person. As we have seen, 阿兰 makes development of the individual the goal of all social and political organization, and therefore of all education. Nothing was more alien to him than the sociological theories emerging at the time, and particularly that of Durkheim, who regarded education as a sort of production process aimed at turning out individuals in accordance with a set of social norms. ‘Anyone who observes individual personalities soon comes to the conclusion that each develops according to its own internal rules’(前言1)。让我们在这一点上稍作讨论。

首先,强调人的个性并不意味着强调能力的不平等,而是强调生活和理解方式的多样性。每个人都有能力获取知识,但是每个人都有不同的方式来做,就像我们都有不同的笔迹一样。其次,人的个性无视心理专长。对于阿兰(Alain)来说,不能将其归类为更笼统的类别,这就是为什么老师不能将先前获得的人类行为科学知识作为他们工作的出发点:“您说,一个人必须认识孩子才能教给他们,但这不是真的。我想说,一个人必须教他们以了解他们’(十六,45)。个性并不是理想的实现,它是一种教育原则,仅因为它是生活中的事实。因此,如果教育是要尊重这种个性,那么如果不是要设定自己的目标,即“使一个人与另一个人具有相同的感受”’(同上),不是因为这样的教育政策是应受谴责的,而是因为这是不可能的:‘您不能改变个性’ (ibid.).

阿兰 probably knew that many influences can be exerted through education, but he wanted to point out that these influences cannot be imposed on malleable material as the teacher sees fit. For him, the reverse is the case. Instead of thinking that social norms shape individuals on a single model, we should realize that it is the personality of each child that determines to what extent any given norm will affect them. ‘The contradiction that you say you see between ideal human feelings and strictly individual personality exists inside, not outside, the human being, and that is where it is constantly being resolved. In every individual the nature shared by all human beings is developed using the individual’s own resources’ (ibid.).

Each individual will therefore learn the same values or the same universal or simply general knowledge, but this universality will only be what each individual makes of it. In 阿兰’在哲学上,个性主题与同样基本的第二个主题共存:尽管每个上学的孩子都是个人,但童年的自然状态必然对所有人都相同,可以概括为两个点。

首先,与受煽动主义观点影响的教育家不同,莱恩断言儿童’最初的接触不是与事物接触,而是与人接触,只有通过人类中介才能接触到事物(XXXI,81)。这一点至关重要,因为这意味着孩子学习的第一件事就是语言。小孩儿 ’s knowledge of the world around them is as extensive as their means of expression allow. This view can form the basis for a critique of all educational methods that assume that knowledge comes from contact with things. For 阿兰 the reverse is true: it is not seeing the objects around us that teaches us about them; rather it is only when we have learned about them that we will finally be capable of seeing them.


因此,孩子们’自发的万物有灵论和人类中心主义,以及教育家的基本戒律:如果‘所有在概念化上的努力无一例外地都承担着人类秩序和初步抽象的双重印记’,这意味着‘总是有错误[…] have to come first’(XXXI,82)。从这个意义上讲,教育只是发展的一种形式,因为每个人都是独一无二的,必须教育他或她自己–没有其他人可以承担责任。确实,教育的具体任务是纠正儿童’s spontaneous interpretation of their physical and social environment. In the next section, we will see how 阿兰 defines the content of schoolwork to meet this requirement.




这就是为什么他认为文化与个性之间有着密切的联系。当他写道:‘只有一种方法可以使人清楚地思考,那就是将一些久经考验的想法进​​一步传播’(LIV,136),或“一种共享的文化带出差异”(XXII,59),他暗示我们知道的越多,我们就越能增强我们的个性,相反,总是那些最不了解的人相同的意见。学习一个’s culture is therefore considered by 阿兰 as the best training for creativity, because it should not teach us what we ought to think but help us to discover a model for freedom.


The third question, concerning the means by which the school should accomplish its educational mission, brings us to the idea of teaching, of the school as a place of enlightenment, but a specific place, one that should not be confused with life itself. The principle underlying the various movements for educational renewal in Europe in the twentieth century-education for life and through life-is foreign to 阿兰’s philosophy, although he might have sympathized with some aspects of their criticism of schools. For example, 阿兰 does not accept Freinet’区别于学校传授的抽象知识(与生命隔绝)和实践知识(植根于生活)。他对学校的批评从未导致他提出旨在使学校更加开放的改革建议。

固执己见的原因很明显:基于“生活”的教育方法’误以为事物本身的想法是天真的。的确,这是不可避免的,因为在文化中而不是在生物意义上的生活永远都不过是一个观念,而“没有任何观念等于事物的真实本质。’(XXX,78)。教育家和其他任何人都没有定义“生活”的特权’。这就是为什么面对人类无法避免“观点”的原因 ’,阿兰(Alain)选择这样一种观点,即对他而言,主观知识的选择似乎最少,并得到了历史和社会的认可。在捍卫教学方面,阿兰可能更接近共和派学校的哲学,而不是教育革新运动。但是在这里,他也只同意共和党哲学家的结论,因为就原则而言,阿兰从未相信知识本身就是一件好事。在这方面,他与实用主义更为接近,实用主义在许多方面都成为了教育更新运动哲学的基础,因为他仅将知识视为通向了解世界并采取行动的手段。他拒绝通过事物进行学习的想法,因为它总是不完整,这自相矛盾地是最可能的最抽象的学习形式:充其量只是掌握技术技能,而不是自由判断。

这就是他捍卫教学的原因。但是值得重复的是,这种教导不是目的,而是手段,最有效的手段是人类的思想因其本性而了解了它所来自的世界。从这一原则陈述中可以得出几个结论。断言没有一种观念等同于事物的真实本质,就是说,任何知识都可以通过其与其他知识的关系来定义,而不是通过其所代表的现实来定义。知识是独立组织的,并遵循自己的逻辑,“从一个想法到另一个想法”’(XVIII,48-49)。这项运动是教育的主题,远远超过了任何与现实相距遥远的现实。这就是为什么在学校学习的知识必须是基础知识的原因。要素是出发点,既本身完整,又使学生能够继续学习过程。另一方面,最新的知识形式并不教育学生。这种知识只能教育那些已经受过高等教育的人,因为它假定已经掌握了基础知识。有知识和知识’ (XVIII, 47).

For those who are beginning their education, only these basic elements constitute true knowledge. And while the knowledge they acquire later may be true knowledge for some, for pupils it can only be opinions and information, in other words purely factual knowledge whose principles they have not mastered. 学校’我们的使命不是告知,而是教育。要断言自主的知识组织,就是说它是由不同的学科组成的,应该以这种形式在学校教授。从某种意义上讲,兰恩回到了启蒙时代的百科全书理想,这一理想被共和党教育所接管。

同时,阿兰坚持他的基本观点,正如我们已经看到的那样,孩子上学与两个世界接触:人的世界和事物的世界。这就是为什么在阿兰’从理论上讲,只有两个基本学科:针对物世界的科学知识和针对人的世界的文学。首先,我们应该阐明科学教育的目标,即不是积累知识而是发展一个人。’观察世界的能力。牢记儿童根据其自然状况对世界的自发解释,这意味着发展一种科学方法的基础:学会在没有迷信的情况下看待事物的世界;清除对儿童自然占主导地位的万物有灵论和拟人化观念;认识到物质世界不是由诸神的异想天开所决定,而是由“必要性”决定。’换句话说,没有神秘感的特定机制。这不是“教大自然[…],但要根据对象和明确意识到的必要性来设定思想’ (XIX, 50).

自然科学显然适合实现这一目标。但是,知识的顺序意味着,由于没有科学的准备,自然科学就无法理解 ’(XXV,67),然后它们除了提供始终有用的科学教育基础(PE,9,261)外,主要是数学使我们能够实现分配给科学教育的目标。数学有两个优点,其一是避免了人为因素。

在绘制几何图形或进行算术计算时,某些要求变得显而易见,尽管这是常规的,但绝不是任意的。其次,数学的优点是可以让孩子完全理解:‘在几何和算术上,没有误导性的表象,也没有奥秘。当我加5到7等于12时,这个过程很清楚,所有人都可以看到。没有隐藏的机制’(LXII,157)。在数学中,基础知识也是确定性知识。一个学习累加的孩子在这一点上与专业数学家一样了解很多。每个人都有相同的理性知识。比科学教育更基础的是我们通过阅读文学作品获得的人类知识。我们在这里也必须从童年的本性开始,即一个孩子 ’世界的经验是任意性和不稳定性之一。这就是为什么“首要任务是给自己一个呼吸的空间,并将周围的人放回足够远的地方以使他们有清晰的视野’ (XXV, 66).


Three further points should be clarified here. Firstly, reading does not mean spelling out words. It is well known that 阿兰 was against this method of reading because parroting it does not allow the text to be kept at a distance. Like the real world, the book masters the child more than the child masters the book. Reading silently, with your eyes, on the other hand, means ordering your thoughts around a subject without being its slave. You can master the book and think for yourself while following the thoughts of the author. ‘Knowing how to read’, 阿兰 wrote, is ‘applauding your own thoughts in another person’(LXXIX,200)。值得指出的是,捍卫“用眼睛看书”’, 阿兰 is not taking a stand on a particular method of learning to read, which did not interest him. What he is concerned with is the end, not the means.

第二个澄清是:对问题“我们应该读什么?’, 阿兰’s的回答是明确的:‘我完全没有限制[…] I cannot imagine a person whose prime requirement is not being surrounded by humanity as it is found on the pages of great books'(XXV, 66-67). Here, the humanist goal of education finds a direct application, meaning that there is no such thing as reading-matter to be used in schools, nor reading-matter for the élite. Everybody should read, and they should read everything. Here 阿兰 does not see himself as imposing the literary norms of a bench-mark culture but as stating his conviction that the content of such books is both sufficiently distant from and sufficiently close to readers to offer them the possibility of liberation, through knowledge, from all the forms of servitude inherent in immersion in the world of people.

在捍卫教学指导时,阿兰暴露了传统上对学校的反对意见之一:它没有心,换句话说,它忽略了教育的基本方面– the child’的情感发展。他对此异议有两个答复。首先,他从情感观念中去除了其内在的朴素。基于情感的教育可以很容易地表现为基于爱的教育,但是也可以很容易地将其作为基于恶意的教育。 ‘感情很快变得暴躁’,阿兰(Alain)写道,老师可以从积极的情绪突然变成消极的情绪。它所要做的就是惹恼一些不规则或学习困难的人,这势必会发生。其次,阿兰不禁怀疑这些影响孩子良好情感的愿望和条件。换句话说,有一种爱孩子的方式实际上否认了他们的个性。相反,有一种似乎不爱他们的方法,实际上是一种尊重和信任他们的方法。我们很容易看出,这两个反对意见的背后是康德哲学中合法性与美德之间的区别。对于阿兰(Alain)以及其他理性主义者而言,道德仅涉及一个’s private life.

Any attempt to organize a group structure such as a school on a model based on moral values runs the risk of degenerating into a reign of terror, or even what we now call totalitarianism. 教育 is not a matter of morals but a matter of law. The relationship between teachers and pupils cannot be governed by moral feelings; it 必须 have its basis in a legal concept such as a contract rather than in emotional attachment. For 阿兰, teachers should indeed be heartless-not out of indifference to the children but, on the contrary, because they see the liberation of the child as the main task of education.


如果在学校教授的学科是由在稳固的基础上建立个人与环境(包括人与人)之间关系的教育必要性决定的,那么不言而喻,这种教育对所有人来说都是必须的。 ‘我觉得荒谬的是,决定学习一件事而不是另一件事的决定应该留给儿童及其家庭’,阿兰写道。 ‘指责该国试图强加这个或那个主题也是荒谬的。没有人应该选择,那样做出选择’(十九,49-50)。我们可以看到阿兰’这方面的思想与共和党教育工作者的思想相吻合:上学应该是义务性的,而不应由一家之主决定。事实仍然是,这种知识不容易获得,这带来了学习困难以及应如何克服这些困难的问题,换句话说,是学生的失败以及教育方法的失败。阿兰可能正是在这两个问题上’他当时的教育环境对他的哲学影响最大。


阿兰’对学习困难的第一反应是设法找出其原因。他是第一个谴责以智力差异来解释学习困难的人之一:‘我厌倦了听到那个人很聪明,而另一个人却不聪明。’(XXIV,62)。就简单的智力而言,他认为没有没有无法克服的困难:``哪个人,无论别人眼中的平庸,都无法掌握几何学,以正确的顺序解决困难而不是灰心?从几何学发展到最先进,最艰巨的研究就像从做白日梦到几何学一样。困难是一样的:急躁,无法克服;对于患者,患者将一次不存在’ (ibid.). So when he discusses learning difficulties, 阿兰 thinks in terms of ‘patience’ and ‘impatience’而不是智力。

换句话说,他将问题的重点从智力转移到品格:对他来说,在学校取得成功是一个意志力的问题。如果我们再次将其与童年的本性联系起来,则该论点的范围将更容易理解。尽管我们可以通过说欲望是对即时满足的需求来区分欲望和意志力,而意志力考虑了所有限制条件和使之能够实现其目标的手段,但我们必须承认,在儿童时代盛行的是欲望,而不是儿童意志。他们自然会屈从于对权力的幻想,从而导致儿童避开意志力。 ‘白痴就像驴子,摇摇耳朵,不让步’(二十四岁,64岁)。正是这种对意志力的拒绝,没有意志力的意志,童年的自然状况的遗产,在阿兰’s的观点说明了学习困难,最初每个人都必须是一样的。这种观点还提供了一种解决方案,可以增强意志力:‘让学生做的工作考验了自己的性格,而不是智力。无论是拼写,翻译还是算术,挑战都在于克服情绪,学会坚持’ (XXIV, 65).



我们将不得不在教学方法问题上得出类似的结论。首先,必须赞扬阿兰因批评演讲课和支持积极的教育方法。他对教学方式的批评只能通过再次提及童年的本质来适当地理解。如果孩子们听老师讲课没有学到任何东西,那是因为这种方法加强了他们对语音和抽象的服从。演讲是对语言的神奇使用的典型代表,这种语言排除了事物的世界,一切皆有可能,但虚无。换句话说,它永远不会像书面文字那样为孩子们提供任何可以改变他们对世界的体验的东西。它不能使他们抛弃童年般的虚假世界。从这一分析可以得出两个结论。首先,阿兰(Alain)提倡主动学习:‘听和看不会使世界上任何地方的任何学生都有进步的机会,只有’ (VI, 20).

这种观点使小学班级成为了头脑学习的场所:‘老师很少工作而孩子却很多工作的地方。上课没有像雨一样落下,孩子们双臂交叉着听。取而代之的是孩子们阅读,写作,计算,绘画,背诵,复制和再复制。黑板上有很多练习,但小学生总是重复’缓慢且频繁地选择板岩,并且总是要花费很长的时间[…]花了很多时间在练习本上制作干净的副本[…]继续进行写作,朗诵,阅读,绘画和计算;建筑知识’(XXXIII,86-87)。这个观点也定义了老师’的角色,而不是作为准备和授课,而是组织学习和对任务进行分级’(II,9)。在这方面,老师不过是知识的传播者,是书籍的辅助手段,这使我们得出了从阿兰得出的第二个结论。’分析表明,阅读在学校作业中具有压倒一切的重要性:‘让他们学习阅读,然后再阅读更多。让他们受到诗人,演说家和讲故事者的教育。如果我们不尝试一次做所有事情,那将有很多时间。小学里有一个成年人讲课的荒诞场面。我讨厌这些小索邦尼。我可以通过打开的窗户聆听来测试它们。如果老师不说话,孩子们正在读书,那么一切都很好’ (XXV, 67).

However, to say that 阿兰 was in favour of active learning is not to tell the whole story. The term ‘active learning’ is in itself vague and requires clarification. It is vital here to note that, for 阿兰, schoolwork only contributes to freedom of the mind if it first lays great stress on discipline of the body. This assertion has the force of a statement of principle that goes far beyond education: generally speaking, it is only by taking the world as its point of departure that the mind can liberate itself. Freedom is never effective if it is too far removed from the world of things or of people. The mind is only real if it manages to give itself a body. This is why, at school, ‘the body 必须 first of all be favourably disposed’ (XXII, 58).


在这种情况下,也许可以注意到“建议书”的第二个局限性’教育,与我们之前提到的类似。它涉及所谓的“支持问题”’.4 在讨论学习动机时,Alain强烈批评了基于游戏或兴趣的教育,该教育旨在激发学生对眼前或即将来临的快乐或兴趣的承诺。这种批评当然是相关的,因为这些方法仅针对满足的愿望,而无助于增强学习的决心(II,10)。这也无济于事,因为大脑能够感觉到的愉悦对于孩子的自发兴趣而言是陌生的(IV,14)。换句话说,在学校学习中存在不可避免的限制因素,短期的动机无法完全消除这种限制。培养思想需要大量的工作,而这只能通过始终如一的决心和毅力来实现,而永远不能通过短暂的欲望冲动来实现。不幸的是,学习学校科目固有的限制使得只有在学生接受学校的要求时才能成功地吸收它们。




Following this account of 阿兰’s reflections on education we could draw two conclusions. Firstly, his specifically educational philosophy is no doubt historically dated, as we have seen in respect of pupil failure and teaching methods. We feel that 阿兰’s suggestions belong to their own time and have only marginal relevance for education nowadays, given the emergence of new phenomena such as the social dimension of school failure and the collapse of the implicit agreement binding pupil to school, which 阿兰 was bound to discount. But while the methods he recommends may be outdated, we believe that his philosophy of education, that is his commitment to the principles of education, is still relevant.

在社会,尤其是经济界对国家教育提出越来越高的要求的时候,他的建议书 ’教育倡导一种高度警惕的哲学,我们会非常注意。阿兰提醒改革者们,他们急于将学校转变为工业企业,在教育方面要遵循一定的顺序,我们必须小心,不要因渴望向学校开放而破坏学校。劳动世界,因为没有耕a的头脑就没有真正的人性,也可能没有真正有效的职业培训。阿兰还提醒我们,一般人,因此也包括儿童,从来都不是可以塑造成符合外部规范的原材料。每个人都有无与伦比的应变能力,这意味着教育绝不能与通过外部干预而产生个人的技术过程相提并论;它更像是个人发展自己的实际过程。

That said, it is obvious that this philosophy of education is in no way revolutionary. 阿兰 explicitly denied any such intention, since he believed that any form of revolution was much more likely to strengthen external authority over the individual than to free the individual from it. In this sense, 阿兰 can be said to be an educational realist, meaning that he distrusts any educational plans that involve too much interference. For him, the main concern of education was not to invent a new type of person or a new world but to come to terms with reality. This does not mean that 阿兰 was a conservative, only that he did not rely on teachers to change human beings but on human beings themselves.


  • Philippe Foray(法国)。 受过哲学教育. Teaches at the Institut Universitaire de Formation des Maître of the Academia de Lyon. The author of several essays on Kant, on whom he has also written a thesis, and on 阿兰 and education.
  • 阿兰, Propos sur l’éducation,巴黎,PUF,1986年。(收藏:‘Quadrige’。)这本书还包含Pédagogie入门课程。在本文中,Propos de l’éducation用罗马数字的章节号引用,然后是页码。用字母PE表示对Pédagogie婴幼儿的引用。
  • 阿兰, 政治,巴黎,PUF,1951年,第3页。 270。
  • J.S.布鲁纳发展报’enfant:savoir faire,savoir dire,巴黎,PUF,1983,p。 78。

Bibliography I: books by 阿兰

  • 查特尔河畔夸特温特’精神与激情。巴黎,布洛赫(Bloch),1917年。[重新发布:Elémentsdephilosophie。巴黎,加里马德,1941年。]
  • 艺术体系。巴黎,加利马德,1920年。
  • 火星ou la guerrejugée。巴黎,加里马德,1921年。
  • 历史与历史。巴黎,加里马德,1927年。
  • 滨海企业家。 1930年,巴黎,加利马德。
  • Les Dieux。 1930年,巴黎,加利马德。
  • 提案书’éducation。第一版。 1932年,巴黎。”>
  • 笔迹历史。 在:Les arts et les dieux。巴黎,加里马德,1937年。
  • 提案。 巴黎,加里马德(Gallimard),图书馆广场,1956年。
  • 幼儿教育学。巴黎,法国新闻大学,1963年。(Esquisses d’Alain: I)

Bibliography II: works on 阿兰

  • 帕斯卡(G. 香s’Alain。巴黎,博尔达斯,1946年。
  • Hyppolite,J。‘L’Existence, l’imaginaire et la valeur chez 阿兰’。法兰西美居(巴黎),1949年10月。
  • 形而上学士气 (巴黎),1952年第2号。[特刊]
  • ‘Hommage à 阿兰’新法国评论 (巴黎),1952年9月。[特刊]
  • 伯恩河(编辑) 歌剧院,阿兰,哲学家‘。巴黎,博尔达斯(1987)。


该文本最初发布于 前景展望 (教科文组织,国际教育局),第一卷。二十五号1995年9月,第3页。 535-51。

经许可转载。要获取本文的PDF版本,请使用: http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/archive/publications/ThinkersPdf/alaine.pdf

图片来源:Sociétéd’Histoire du Vésinet.


关键绩效指标研究所的2020年议程现已发布! |  关键绩效指标研究所的最新更新 |  来自客户的好评 |